18 ideas
| 10688 | 'Equivocation' is when terms do not mean the same thing in premises and conclusion [Beall/Restall] |
| Full Idea: 'Equivocation' is when the terms do not mean the same thing in the premises and in the conclusion. | |
| From: JC Beall / G Restall (Logical Consequence [2005], Intro) |
| 9193 | ZF set theory has variables which range over sets, 'equals' and 'member', and extensionality [Dummett] |
| Full Idea: ZF set theory is a first-order axiomatization. Variables range over sets, there are no second-order variables, and primitive predicates are just 'equals' and 'member of'. The axiom of extensionality says sets with the same members are identical. | |
| From: Michael Dummett (The Philosophy of Mathematics [1998], 7) | |
| A reaction: If the eleven members of the cricket team are the same as the eleven members of the hockey team, is the cricket team the same as the hockey team? Our cricket team is better than our hockey team, so different predicates apply to them. |
| 9194 | The main alternative to ZF is one which includes looser classes as well as sets [Dummett] |
| Full Idea: The main alternative to ZF is two-sorted theories, with some variables ranging over classes. Classes have more generous existence assumptions: there is a universal class, containing all sets, and a class containing all ordinals. Classes are not members. | |
| From: Michael Dummett (The Philosophy of Mathematics [1998], 7.1.1) | |
| A reaction: My intuition is to prefer strict systems when it comes to logical theories. The whole point is precision. Otherwise we could just think about things, and skip all this difficult symbolic stuff. |
| 10690 | Formal logic is invariant under permutations, or devoid of content, or gives the norms for thought [Beall/Restall] |
| Full Idea: Logic is purely formal either when it is invariant under permutation of object (Tarski), or when it has totally abstracted away from all contents, or it is the constitutive norms for thought. | |
| From: JC Beall / G Restall (Logical Consequence [2005], 2) | |
| A reaction: [compressed] The third account sounds rather woolly, and the second one sounds like a tricky operation, but the first one sounds clear and decisive, so I vote for Tarski. |
| 10691 | Logical consequence needs either proofs, or absence of counterexamples [Beall/Restall] |
| Full Idea: Technical work on logical consequence has either focused on proofs, where validity is the existence of a proof of the conclusions from the premises, or on models, which focus on the absence of counterexamples. | |
| From: JC Beall / G Restall (Logical Consequence [2005], 3) |
| 10695 | Logical consequence is either necessary truth preservation, or preservation based on interpretation [Beall/Restall] |
| Full Idea: Two different views of logical consequence are necessary truth-preservation (based on modelling possible worlds; favoured by Realists), or truth-preservation based on the meanings of the logical vocabulary (differing in various models; for Anti-Realists). | |
| From: JC Beall / G Restall (Logical Consequence [2005], 2) | |
| A reaction: Thus Dummett prefers the second view, because the law of excluded middle is optional. My instincts are with the first one. |
| 10689 | A step is a 'material consequence' if we need contents as well as form [Beall/Restall] |
| Full Idea: A logical step is a 'material consequence' and not a formal one, if we need the contents as well as the structure or form. | |
| From: JC Beall / G Restall (Logical Consequence [2005], 2) |
| 9195 | Intuitionists reject excluded middle, not for a third value, but for possibility of proof [Dummett] |
| Full Idea: It must not be concluded from the rejection of excluded middle that intuitionistic logic operates with three values: true, false, and neither true nor false. It does not make use of true and false, but only with a construction being a proof. | |
| From: Michael Dummett (The Philosophy of Mathematics [1998], 8.1) | |
| A reaction: This just sounds like verificationism to me, with all its problems. It seems to make speculative statements meaningless, which can't be right. Realism has lots of propositions which are assumed to be true or false, but also unknowable. |
| 9186 | First-order logic concerns objects; second-order adds properties, kinds, relations and functions [Dummett] |
| Full Idea: First-order logic is distinguished by generalizations (quantification) only over objects: second-order logic admits generalizations or quantification over properties or kinds of objects, and over relations between them, and functions defined over them. | |
| From: Michael Dummett (The Philosophy of Mathematics [1998], 3.1) | |
| A reaction: Second-order logic was introduced by Frege, but is (interestingly) rejected by Quine, because of the ontological commitments involved. I remain unconvinced that quantification entails ontological commitment, so I'm happy. |
| 9187 | Logical truths and inference are characterized either syntactically or semantically [Dummett] |
| Full Idea: There are two ways of characterizing logical truths and correct inference. Proof-theoretic or syntactic characterizations, if the formalization admits of proof or derivation; and model-theoretic or semantic versions, being true in all interpretations. | |
| From: Michael Dummett (The Philosophy of Mathematics [1998], 3.1) | |
| A reaction: Dummett calls this distinction 'fundamental'. The second one involves truth, and hence meaning, where the first one just responds to rules. ..But how can you have a notion of correctly following a rule, without a notion of truth? |
| 10696 | A 'logical truth' (or 'tautology', or 'theorem') follows from empty premises [Beall/Restall] |
| Full Idea: If a conclusion follows from an empty collection of premises, it is true by logic alone, and is a 'logical truth' (sometimes a 'tautology'), or, in the proof-centred approach, 'theorems'. | |
| From: JC Beall / G Restall (Logical Consequence [2005], 4) | |
| A reaction: These truths are written as following from the empty set Φ. They are just implications derived from the axioms and the rules. |
| 10693 | Models are mathematical structures which interpret the non-logical primitives [Beall/Restall] |
| Full Idea: Models are abstract mathematical structures that provide possible interpretations for each of the non-logical primitives in a formal language. | |
| From: JC Beall / G Restall (Logical Consequence [2005], 3) |
| 9191 | Ordinals seem more basic than cardinals, since we count objects in sequence [Dummett] |
| Full Idea: It can be argued that the notion of ordinal numbers is more fundamental than that of cardinals. To count objects, we must count them in sequence. ..The theory of ordinals forms the substratum of Cantor's theory of cardinals. | |
| From: Michael Dummett (The Philosophy of Mathematics [1998], 5) | |
| A reaction: Depends what you mean by 'fundamental'. I would take cardinality to be psychologically prior ('that is a lot of sheep'). You can't order people by height without first acquiring some people with differing heights. I vote for cardinals. |
| 10692 | Hilbert proofs have simple rules and complex axioms, and natural deduction is the opposite [Beall/Restall] |
| Full Idea: There are many proof-systems, the main being Hilbert proofs (with simple rules and complex axioms), or natural deduction systems (with few axioms and many rules, and the rules constitute the meaning of the connectives). | |
| From: JC Beall / G Restall (Logical Consequence [2005], 3) |
| 9192 | The number 4 has different positions in the naturals and the wholes, with the same structure [Dummett] |
| Full Idea: The number 4 cannot be characterized solely by its position in a system, because it has different positions in the system of natural numbers and that of the positive whole numbers, whereas these systems have the very same structure. | |
| From: Michael Dummett (The Philosophy of Mathematics [1998], 6.1) | |
| A reaction: Dummett seems to think this is fairly decisive against structuralism. There is also the structure of the real numbers. We will solve this by saying that the wholes are abstracted from the naturals, which are abstracted from the reals. Job done. |
| 19702 | We can't normally say that we know something 'but it might be false' [Dougherty] |
| Full Idea: It will ordinarily be conversationally inappropriate to say 'I know that p, but p might be false' even if it is true, since this would mislead an interlocutor to infer that that possibility was an epistemically significant one. | |
| From: Trent Dougherty (Fallibilism [2011], 'Epistemic') | |
| A reaction: This seems to imply hypocrisy when a fallibilist philosopher claims (in non-philosophical company) to know something. Fair enough. Philosophers are in a permanent state of hypocrisy about what they are really thinking. That's the fun of it. |
| 19701 | Fallibilism is consistent with dogmatism or scepticism, and is not alternative to them [Dougherty] |
| Full Idea: There has been a tendency to treat fallibilism as an alternative to either dogmatism or scepticism. ...But it is much better to think of fallibilism as consistent with either dogmatism or skepticism. | |
| From: Trent Dougherty (Fallibilism [2011], 'Closure') | |
| A reaction: It seems perfectly reasonably to describe oneself as a 'fallibilist dogmatist' (perhaps from the Pope?), or a 'fallibilist sceptic' (perhaps from Peter Unger?), so this idea sounds correct. |
| 19700 | It is best to see the fallibility in the reasons, rather than in the agents or the knowledge [Dougherty] |
| Full Idea: It seems best to take fallible reasons as the basic notion of fallibilism. So fallible knowers are agents who know what they know on the basis of fallible reasons. Fallible knowledge will be knowledge on basis of fallible reasons. | |
| From: Trent Dougherty (Fallibilism [2011], 'Cognates') | |
| A reaction: This is because an ideal knower would be compelled by the evidence, so if fallibilism is universal it must reside in the evidence and not in the knower (bottom p.131). |